胡適慨嘆：中華民國的大法官人數遠比美國的多多 ，不合理。
美國是9人，所以2015年要裁決同性戀者是否可結婚的報導：
The nine justices are expected to hear oral arguments in April

The US Supreme Court will rule this year on whether gay couples have a right to marry across all states
In a brief order, it said it would hear cases about marriage bans upheld by an appeal in a number of states.

Tesco: why did it all go so wrong?

'Tesco invested heavily in large edge-of-town and out-of-town stores, which were hit by the rise of internet shopping.' Photograph: Rex Features

Monday 22 September 2014 15.44 BST

“There are two types of chancellor,” Gordon Brown used to joke. “Those who fail and those who get out in time.” Tesco’s former chief executive, Terry Leahy, now enjoying a lucrative career as a feted business guru, got out in time. The irony is that many of the problems now bringing the retail giant low are a legacy of the strategic decisions he made.

The latest blow to the company is the extraordinary overestimate of expected half-yearly profits – amounting to a quarter of what was expected for the period – that has seen Tesco lose about a tenth of its value, massive in City terms. It’s an unwelcome greeting for the new chief executive, Dave Lewis, who has only just taken over from Leahy’s successor, Philip Clarke. The latter left after failing to resolve the problems he inherited.

What went wrong at Britain’s biggest and most bullish retailer? The answer is no single thing, except perhaps what happens when the mystique of a seemingly impregnable empire evaporates. For years, anyone who had dealings with Tescowould come away with respect for the apparent clinical efficiency of its business model. It did the same things – in terms of treatment of suppliers, playing the planning system and in the impact it had on local economies – as the other supermarkets, but it played the game harder.

Successive reports from the Competition Commission found the company acting against the public interest in a sector that was too concentrated and had too much power to be good for a healthy retail ecosystem. But Tesco and the other supermarkets got away with it again and again, partly because of a supine regulator and partly due to sheer chutzpah. Tesco’s bristling self-confidence carried governments, regulators, investors and, for a time, the public along with it. When Tesco was taking about £1 in every £8 that British people spent shopping, Leahy once quipped that this left another £7 for the supermarket to go for. The bravado worked. Early in his term of office, Tony Blair opined that the supermarkets had their suppliers in an “armlock”, but Leahy was still given a knighthood.

Then overconfidence led to overreach. Seeing limits to its UK expansion, Tesco began spreading overseas. But as its initially confident adventure in the US foundered, so its ambitions began to recede in China and Japan too. Tesco had been the company that could do no wrong; now investors began to question whether it knew what it was doing.

The supermarket increasingly found itself in a no man’s land between the deep cost-cutters such as Aldi and Lidl and the quality brands such as Waitrose, leaving it with a weaker, less distinctive offer, while also fighting off its near rivals Sainsbury, Asda and Morrisons.

But it was worse than that. Tesco invested heavily in large edge-of-town and out-of-town stores, which were hit by the rise of internet shopping. The supermarket tried to respond by making a trip to Tesco Extra a family outing. Yoga classes, child-friendly restaurants and independent-style coffee chains were brought in to make the old uncle look groovy. But now, instead of making the weather, in business terms it was chasing patches of sun that kept receding.

The public was falling out of love with the weekly mega-shop and there was a growing awareness of the impact of big supermarkets on local economies. Unlike smaller independent and locally owned stores, supermarkets suck more spending out of an area and have a negative overall effect on jobs in the retail sector. “Clone towns” dominated by chain stores created a backlash. This is reflected both in the explosion of interest in community food-growing initiatives, craft bakers and brewers, and in the rise of so-called “transition towns” that aim to build sustainable communities.

Tesco, though wounded, remains by far the UK’s biggest retailer. But if, as a result of its travails, it is reduced in size, the market opens up to some degree and we learn the lessons of its imperial overreach, that would be good for Britain. A resilient economy needs diversity. Too much power in the hands of too few retailers is bad for everyone – farmers, producers, consumers and the businesses themselves.

When big goes bad, it hurts far more people. That’s something we learned from the banking crisis. Mistakes get magnified and the blinkered, macho pursuit of growth and profits above all else distorts the business and the economy, and can end up cannibalising the very ecosystem on which it depends. Instead of looking to return the Tesco swagger, Lewis should reflect on how empires often make their worst mistakes as they scrabble to avoid collapse. The worst could be yet to come.

If Dave Lewis was not considering radical action when he began in his role as chief executive officer (CEO) of Tesco in September, then he certainly will be now. The company's sales fell by 4.4% in the first six months of the year, down to £34bn (US$54.4bn).

The retailer also saw declines around the world, not just in the UK market. Asian and European sales fell by 8.4% and 9.3% respectively, although both were affected by currency headwinds. This fed through to a 92% fall in statutory pre-tax profit, to just £112m >>http://bit.ly/10uT02Y

*****
Tesco store in Cambridge 'on verge of receiving 'asbo' from City Council'

Councillors are deliberating over whether to impose a community protection notice on the supermarket after it failed to clear litter when repeatedly askedNATASHA CULZAC

Sunday 26 October 2014

A Tesco store in Cambridge is close to being slapped with a community protection notice (CPN) – formerly an Asbo – after it reportedly riled the council for not clearing litter in a fence.

The superstore on Newmarket Road was accused by a councillor of continually ignoring requests to clear up the rubbish that had accrued on its grounds.

According to Cambridge News, in a council meeting this week Peter Roberts, Cambridge City Council’s Executive Councillor for Waste, Environment & Public Health, told attendees: “We are potentially pursuing a community protection notice against Tesco.

“Tesco in Abbey has had a new fence and it’s basically just rammed with rubbish. We’ve asked several times they clean their ground as part of the agreement they have with us as the city authority and they continually, despite their claims otherwise, carry on just leaving it.”

Tesco has been contacted by The Independent for comment.

Community protection notices are a re-branding of the previous anti-social behaviour orders (abos), giving local authorities, police and social landlords the power to issue orders to curb behaviour that negatively affects the community.

Cllr George Owers added in the meeting: “Tesco, to me, are the only organisation or business in Cambridge who persistently allow this to happen on their grounds and never clean it up.

“I hope the expanded enforcement team will look at using their increased resources to talk more to businesses, all kinds of businesses where we have similar problems, and if they persistently ignore us, use this power more widely than just Tesco.”

A Tesco spokesman told the newspaper: “We are working closely with the city council to tidy up the site.

“Contractors will be visiting the site shortly to undertake the necessary works and we will continue to monitor the situation on an ongoing basis.”

From Espresso: McDonald’s, the world’s biggest fast-food chain, is likely to say today that its global “like-for-like” sales (ie, ignoring new outlets) fell in 2014, the first annual decline since 2002. Its biggest problem is its home market, America, where it has 14,200 of its 35,000 mostly franchised restaurants. Americans flocked to McDonald’s during the recession, but in the past couple of years they have gone elsewhere—to Burger King, its revitalised rival, or upmarket “fast casual” joints. Many seem confused by the menu, with almost 200 items, and put off by frozen “factory” food packed with preservatives. (Some are also appalled by the way the fast-food business treats its workers.) McDonald’s is trying to win customers back. It simplified its menu this month and is introducing fancier bespoke burgers in up to 2,000 restaurants this year. But it may take much more to restore diners’ appetites http://econ.st/1CVXH2W

McDonald’s restaurants stand among American capitalism’s greatest success stories. But now McDonald’s has lost its sizzle. Global sales have been declining since at least last July. When the company announces its annual results on January 23rd, analysts think it will reveal its first full-year fall in like-for-like revenues since 2002. The Economist explains why McDonald's sales are fallinghttp://econ.st/1C4cb24

McDonald’s Japan disclosed four cases of contaminated food, including a human tooth found in a pack of french fries, fueling already-heightened concerns after its Chinese supplier was reported to have sold expired...

WSJ.COM|由 MEGUMI FUJIKAWA 上傳

McDonald's misses you at breakfast. So it's testing a new promotion -- free coffee.

This is a tale of two hamburgers. One is in decline and the other is...

ON.FT.COM

January 1, 2015 5:12 pm

McDonald’s all-American menu is shaken by the Shack

John Gapper

Millennials regard McDonald’s as unhealthy, outdated and downmarket

T

his is a tale of two hamburgers. One is in decline and the other is growing. One is a symbol of the US and how it exported fast food to the world. The other is a playful New York City contender, marketed as a healthier, tastier alternative. One is the Big Mac, the other is the ShackBurger.

The Big Mac sells for $4.80, contains 530 calories, and is a familiar pile of mass-produced beef, processed cheese, pickles and bun. A double ShackBurger is “100 per cent all-natural Angus beef. No hormones and no antibiotics ever”, on a potato roll, contains 770 calories and costs $7.99 at the Shake Shack in Madison Square Park.

To judge by the differing fortunes of McDonald’s, which is trying to simplify its overstuffed menu to halt a fall in sales and profits, and Shake Shack, the gourmet burger chain founded by the chef Danny Meyer, which this week filed for an initial public offering, the answer is: the ShackBurger.

Here is another question. Which company is closer to McDonald’s, the self-service stand opened in 1948 in San Bernardino, California by Dick and Mac McDonald, with nine items including a 15-cent hamburger? Is it McDonald’s or Shake Shack, which its IPO filing dubs “a ‘roadside’ burger stand serving a classic American menu of premium burgers, hot dogs, crinkle-cut fries, shakes, frozen custard, beer and wine”?

Perhaps the wine is a giveaway — evidence that Shake Shack is a hipster pastiche, favoured by urban millennials who want their organic beef served with a side of nostalgia, and not a real fast- food joint. Surely McDonald’s, where a Big Mac is relatively expensive and Dollar Menu items such as the Bacon McDouble play the role of the old 15-cent hamburger, is the successor?

But the McDonald brothers served beef without hormones and milkshakes with sugar, not corn syrup. California was fairly natural in 1948. US farm animals were not fed antibiotics until 1951 and beef cattle were not given growth hormones until 1954. The mass use of high fructose corn syrup did not start until the mid-1960s.

What about the price? Fifteen cents is equivalent to $1.47 at today’s prices, closer to the Dollar Menu than either the Big Mac or the ShackBurger. But the US is richer than in 1948 — its gross domestic product per head in 2013 was 3.6 times higher. This suggests the average US consumer can afford $5.29 today as easily as 15 cents in 1948. A single ShackBurger costs $5.19.

Rising disposable income, especially among the well paid and educated, has unleashed a challenge to McDonald’s and other “Quick Service Restaurants” from “fast casual” chains such as Chipotle Mexican Grill, Panera Bread and Noodles & Company. They offer lighter, healthier varieties of food (although a Chipotle burrito often has more calories than a Big Mac).

Rising disposable income, especially among the well paid and educated, has unleashed a challenge ’Quick Service Restaurants’

The young are leaving McDonald’s and Taco Bell for such outlets, and for burger brands such as Shake Shack and Five Guys. They prefer the food, they can afford the prices and they regard McDonald’s as unhealthy, outdated, downmarket and not a nice place to be. In its IPO filing, Shake Shack calls itself “fine casual”, deliberately placing itself at the top of the market.

American fast food is being disrupted from on high, unlike other cases of “disruptive innovation” identified by Clayton Christensen, the Harvard professor. Instead of technology or new business methods allowing entrants to undermine incumbents with cheaper products, McDonald’s has a grip on the mass market but is losing the top.

McDonald’s has long struggled with growing complexity, also known as rising inequality. The McDonald’s stand in 1948 — and the franchises later spread across the US by Ray Kroc — were selling to a broad, uniform market. But the top 1 per cent’s share of income in the US has risen rose from 11 per cent in 1948 to 19 per cent in 2012. Selling one menu to one society is much harder.

Its response has been steadily to add more items to the menu to cover all the bases. The nine items of 1948 have expanded to 121, including 14 desserts and shakes, and 29 kinds of chicken and fish wraps and sandwiches. Its mission statement does not even mention hamburgers. Small wonder that its customers are confused.

It is a very big business, with 35,000 outlets in more than 100 countries and annual revenues of $28bn. Shake Shack is tiny, with 63 Shacks and $82m of sales in 2013. But the upstart sells a lot of ShackBurgers — the average US Shack pulls in $5m a year, twice the revenue of the average US McDonald’s outlet, and is more profitable.

On Friday, the fast-food mega-chain unveiled new adsthat expands on the company’s decade-old “I’m Lovin’ It” slogan by highlighting the “lovin’” aspect of the campaign.

“This new focus will inspire everything we do moving forward, from advertising and marketing to how we interact with customers in restaurants and on social media,” the company said in announcing what U.S. Chief Marketing Officer Deborah Wahl calls “a brand transformation.”

The revamped marketing push follows a tough year for McDonald’s MCD-0.47% during which it reported declining revenue. To reverse the slide, the company has slimmed-down what many customers said was a confusing menu while adding healthier and fresher food.

New television and online ads will begin appearing over the weekend, McDonald’s said. One new spot the company posted online features a collection of odd couples — from a knight and a dragon to the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote — coming together in harmony as they share a McDonald’s meal.

“Lately, the balance of lovin’ and hatin’ seems off,” Wahl said in a video posted online by the company. “Who better to stand up for lovin’ than McDonald’s? Lovin’ sits at the heart of our tagline and it sits at the heart of our business.”

There was no immediate word on how much McDonald’s will spend on the new ad campaign.

In addition, McDonald’s is hoping to build a closer relationship with customers by encouraging them to ask questions about the chain’s food. As an example of the social media campaign, the company listed this question: “What part of the chicken is a Chicken McNugget?”

“McDonald’s is moving from a philosophy of billions served to billions heard,” Wahl said in Friday’s video. She also highlighted the company’s recent efforts to scale back the size of its menu while introducing additional healthier dining options, including in its Happy Meals for kids.

The moves come as the world’s largest restaurant company faces increasingly stiff competition from other fast-food outlets as well as from a growing number of fast-casual restaurant chains. In November, McDonald’s U.S. comparable sales dropped 4.6% — a steep decline that even surprised analysts had prepared for a dip of only 1.9%. The company’s sales numbers for December have not yet been released, but some analysts think 2014 could be the first year of negative global same-store sales for McDonald’s since 2002.

Recently, a Fortune magazine cover story outlined some of the issues that have plagued the suffering fast-food giant in recent years. Last month, McDonald’s announced it would simplify its menu, removing several items and extra value meals.